POP surgery with concomitant continence procedure vs no concomitant continence procedure: Vaginal POP surgery with vs without MUS
POP surgery with concomitant continence procedure probably leads to lower vaginal POP surgery with vs without MUS compared with no concomitant continence procedure (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
POP surgery with concomitant continence procedure vs no concomitant continence procedure Vaginal POP surgery with vs without MUS · women with POP and SUI POP surgery with concomitant continence procedure probably leads to lower vaginal POP surgery with vs without MUS compared with no concomitant continence procedure (moderate certainty). Surgery for women with pelvic organ prolapse with or without stress urinary incontinence (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.3 [0.19, 0.48] | 2 studies · 319 participants | Moderate |
POP surgery with concomitant continence procedure vs no concomitant continence procedure Vaginal POP surgery with vs without MUS · women with POP and SUI POP surgery with concomitant continence procedure probably leads to lower vaginal POP surgery with vs without MUS compared with no concomitant continence procedure (moderate certainty). Surgery for women with pelvic organ prolapse with or without stress urinary incontinence (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.04 [0, 0.74] | 1 study · 134 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Surgery for women with pelvic organ prolapse with or without stress urinary incontinence 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.